A verse which I think sums up my approach (or at least the approach I aspire to) is 1 Peter 3:15, where Christians are counseled:

“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect”

In essence, I do not see DISAGREEMENT as mandating DISRESPECT, at least not from a Christian perspective, and my suggestion to fundamentalists is that they don’t take the bible literally enough on this issue and so actually betray the word of God.

To condense a lot into a little, just because we believe Jesus has been revealed as the way, the truth and the life, this does not mean we have all truth, or that we have a monopoly on every truth we have or that truth may not be found beyond Christianity. What we have is a re-orientating truth, one that causes us to see other truths in a different light. This should not render us incapable of learning from others.

I personally find interacting with other paths very valuable as it sharpens my thinking and often highlights forgotten truths within my own tradition. For example, you guys have already prompted me to deeper reflection on the nature of justice. My own understanding of the Bible has grown richer as a consequence. Why should I disrespect anyone for that?

I may disagree with you on some issues, even very important issues – that does not render me incapable on appreciating your questions or our common humanity.

The type of relationship determines whether or not love is an appropriate ingredient. Relationships such as teacher-student, business partners, employer-employee, doctor-patient, counselor-client, or neighbors will be successful if they contain mutual respect, but love is not essential there and it can actually interfere with the integrity of the relationship.

Relationships such as lovers or spouses need both respect and love to be fully successful. Such a relationship having love without respect can be a clinging, needy, resentment-filled mess and probably will not last. Such a relationship with respect but without love can last in some cases, but may not be fully satisfying to the members’ needs. Over a long time, the proportions of love and respect that lovers or spouses have for each other can shift. They can increase, decrease, find a new balance, or become off balance.

So, in my opinion love is not the same as respect, and respect is the more essential.

I think when we focus on our mutual humanity, on things like our common need to love and be loved, our sense of justice, our desire to secure our children’s future and our simple awe and respect for nature then it’s not a stretch at all and we can work comfortably together for many common causes.

I agree, Richard. I so wholeheartedly agree. However, is that enough? As I asked Matt above, what of respect? Does love equal respect? And if you could not have both… if you had to choose one, which would you rather have?

Love, with lack of respect; or
Respect, with lack of love?

In Australia for instance we have this thing we call the “tall poppy syndrome” which means we tend to cut down anyone who thinks too highly of themselves.

I love that! That’s it! I’m moving to Australia!

Phelps for instance, was he dropped at birth?

I don’t know about Phelps, but my mother tells me I was dropped at birth. (I entered the world prematurely while my grandmother was out frantically looking for a midwife in the middle of the night.) That explains a lot!

Matt, I do have one question…

You seem to be very open-minded about all religions without being judgmental, yet you seem to have a firm belief in who you are. I’ve always believed that is possible, but never actually met a person of faith who is completely genuine in their claims of open-mindedness. So my question, if you choose to answer it, is this:

In your opinion, is Christ who he says he is? Is he is not, then he is a lunatic, and the last 2,000 years of Christianity have been a lie. If he is (I happen to believe he is*), then all of the other religions have to be false. How do you reconcile this in your mind? How can you believe something to be so fundamentally true and yet have respect for other beliefs that are in opposition to that truth?

That brings me to this thought… perhaps the last 2,000 years of Christianity have been a lie… Perhaps we had it all wrong, and the majority of us still have it wrong. *Perhaps the truth He spoke and the truth we think he spoke are also in opposition…(?)

See? That’s what happens when you’re dropped at birth…

That’s interesting about the Wiccans. Was that a recent issue/controversy in Australia?

Do you think some cultures are more receptive to the hard-core legalism?

I would say so, yes, though it is much harder to pin down why.

I’m under the impression that people in Africa, for example, are very vulnerable to that.

I am under a similar impression. We have Sudanese Christians in my area that are very separatist. Afraid of contamination if they mix.

Perhaps it has to do with the current economic and political condition the culture is in.

I suspect that has its part, though I think heritage has its part too. In Australia for instance we have this thing we call the “tall poppy syndrome” which means we tend to cut down anyone who thinks too highly of themselves. That happens in the religious sphere too. Leaders who grow too proud risk eliciting strong counter reactions from followers, not to mention the rest of society. Comes from our harsh environment and (anti-authoritarian) convict past I think. Fundamentalism has much less traction here as a consequence, except amongst the mentally disturbed. Consequently we tend to view some of your religious leaders as mentally disturbed when they act the way they do. Phelps for instance, was he dropped at birth?

One proviso here, I would not automatically associate supernaturalism with fundamentalism. New Age was huge over here during the 80s-90s suggesting we are wide open to low commitment supernaturalism.

On one level the crucifixion and resurrection may be understood as the climax of the holy war tradition. The emphasis within the Old Testament, when it came to war, was always “God will fight for us”.

This points up one of the themes that prompt unbelief in the Bible’s God: the provincial character of the O.T. God.

Wallace Stevens wrote “A Mythology Reflects Its Region.” God is made to be universal because he must be the Creator and all-powerful (otherwise he’s not God), but in day-to-day living he’s completely local–he’s even got an address. You can find him in town at his spiffed-up residence, complete with servants, as long as his children are behaving themselves.

Yes, he’s a partisan–the Partisan of partisans. Rather than gather all his creation together in mutual respect and understanding, he prefers to fight for a nation’s army, and, coincidentally, kill as they kill, and plunder as they plunder, and get revenge as they get revenge. Yes, the God of the O.T. is a real S.O.B. Just the kind of God you would expect to find if a single people, beset by many enemies, and in search of real estate, decided to invent a God.
Can’t you see that for a skeptic it is much more likely that this God is an archaic invention rather than the God of the Universe? The Universe has a Hard-Right Conservative for a God? Hell no!

As for physics, scientists do talk about the “laws of physics” do they not? If you personally find it a bit of a stretch though, no matter, I was just seeing if the analogy might serve as some rudimentary common ground.

I think we have extensive common ground in our concern for the well being of people and in wanting to find ways to improve conditions on here-and-now Earth. Those are more important and more satisfying mutual interests than physics/metaphysics anyway.